I have bolded the parts of Land’s radio commentary that are VERBATIM from the Washington Examiner cited above. Here it is:

RICHARD LAND: I want to return now to talk about the President’s proclamation that, his proclamation of new health care rules under Obamacare that will require Catholics and others who have moral and religious objections to, having to pay for abortifacients and morning after pills, medical services that cause abortions. They have a year to kill their conscience and come into compliance.

The President has made a mockery of one of America’s most sacred constitutional principles, the right of individual to freedom of religious belief and practice without interference from government. On Jan. 20, Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s secretary of health and human services, issued new regulations under Obamacare that require employers, including religiously affiliated organizations like hospitals and churches, to include coverage of contraception and abortifacients like the morning-after pill, in their employee health insurance plans.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Now, it’s not clear which part of “no law” Obama and Sebelius missed, but that is exactly what the new HHS regulation does because it forces millions of American Catholics and evangelical Protestants who object to abortion to support practices that violate their most deeply held religious beliefs.

Now, I’m going to be on a webcast Thursday night, 8:00 eastern time along with some Bishops from the Catholic Church and some Rabbis talking about this and how serious it is. If you’ll monitor our website – Richard Land Live! – we’ll post the information about how you can see that webcast. So if you would like to jot down richardlandlive.com and check with us. We don’t have the information right now. But when we do, we’ll put it up.

Um, when the Obama administration announced last summer that the Obamacare mandate would likely include this coverage requirement, a number of religious organizations, including the Catholic Church, requested exemptions. HHS granted an exemption in the regulation announced last week, but it is laughably narrow and brief. Churches donot have to provide the coverage to their clergy, but they must for all other church employees. The regulation thus makes all members of the church contribute to the provision of something alien to their religious faith and practice. Sebelius granted them an extra year to come into compliance.

As Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop and Cardinal-designate of New York said, “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their health care is literally unconscionable. It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically, this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty. In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” Dolan said.

He was not a happy man.

America’s devotion to religious freedom has been so strong for so long that the country recognizes the primacy of religious principle even in areas like military service, with conscientious objector status for Quakers, and in civic rites such as saying the Pledge of Allegiance, from which Jehovah’s Witnesses are exempted. No wonder the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops has called the regulation “an unprecedented attack on religious liberty” because it forces individuals and institutions – listen to this, it forces individuals and institutions to sell, or purchase or um to sell, broker or purchase services to which they have a moral or religious objection.

Americans have a wide divergence of opinion on issues like abortion, but virtually everybody agrees that no man or woman should be forced to violate his or her religious beliefs by supporting practices he or she finds objectionable. This is a civil liberties issue that was resolved centuries ago by the First Amendment.

Land does link to the Washington Examiner editorial under “full show notes” on his radio show website. He also links to columns by Peggy Noonan, Michael Gerson and E.J. Dionne.

Yet, Land made no mention of the Washington Examiner during the segment transcribed above. Listeners did not know he was quoting the Examiner word-for-word.

In fact, during this segment Land cites both Gerson and Noonan. At one point, he even reads aloud a lengthy quote from Noonan’s column. He CLEARLY identifies those words as Peggy Noonan’s.

Land doesn’t do that with the Washington Examiner. I guess stealing from names like Noonan and Gerson is a bridge-too-far for Land? It’s much easier to pass off as one’s own an editorial from the Washington Examiner and Investor’s Business Daily?

Land takes calls from Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and other states. Those listeners most certainly believe that the commentary Richard Land is offering is his own.

That’s fraud. Maybe talk radio fraud is somewhat common. I don’t know. I’m not a big connoisseur of talk radio.

But this practice is plagiarism. It’s unethical and downright deceptive.

Remember that Richard Land is the chief ethicist of the SBC. He’s the president of the SBC’s ETHICS & Religious Liberty Commission.

11 Comments

googled something he said and it came back to an IBD article. He did put a link to the article on his site, but he quoted the thing as if he was just making it up on the spot.

Information extracted from al-Qaida operatives under Bush’s interrogation policies ultimately led us to the compound in Abbottabad. But he did more. As an IBD editorial (“‘Dumb’ War In Iraq Led Obama To Bin Laden”) noted last week, a crucial piece of the puzzle in identifying bin Laden’s courier came from an al-Qaida lieutenant who was caught only because of Bush’s decision to liberate Iraq.

Mr. Weaver
I was wondering if you attempted to contact Dr. Land or the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission about your concerns before you posted them in your blog. I looked to find reference to such a contact but may have missed it.

There is nothing Land could say that would take away the FACT that he committed plagiarism, plain and simple. What he did would have gotten a student thrown out of most colleges and universities or at least a failing mark in the course. Most law schools would expel a student for that kind of work, and I believe most seminaries would as well. He has NO defense to the charge of plagiarism. Reporters who have done less have been booted from the profession.

You are correct that he has no excuse for the plagiarism; however, I do disagree that contacting Land prior to posting on the blog as a waste of time.
If you are a follower of Jesus Christ, then you should follow His Word…Matthew 18:15

Please, do not read contempt in my words just wanting to shed the light of God’s word on a tough situation.

P.S. I am curious if the Christian band “Big Daddy Weave” would be OK with Mr. Weaver using their name as his blog?? Just saying it sounds a little like Matt. 7:3-4

I disagree with your interpretation and application of Matthew 18. I’m sure you might dismiss that perspective as “liberal” or worse. But – in this instance – I stand with the conservative Reformed biblical scholar D.A. Carson. His views on Matthew 18 as they apply to the blogging profession can be found here:

I’ve been blogging here at http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com for 6 years now or so. I started a blog with that handle because I’ve been nicknamed “big daddy weave” for as long as I can remember.

When your last name is Weaver, when you are male, when you look more like an offensive lineman than a free safety, then there’s a good chance growing up someone might give the nickname “big daddy” “big daddy weave” or some variant.

I don’t listen to Christian music, FYI. This isn’t a Christian music website. I don’t purport to be a Christian music artist. To anyone with a brain, there should be no absolutely no confusion.

Mr. Weaver,
Thank you for your response. First, I will correct you in that I am Mrs. Robinson, not Mr. Second, I appreciate your reference to D.A. Carson; however, you may keep Carson, I will keep the Bible. Third, I would like to thank you as a brother in Christ for going the Ad hominem fallacy route. Your attack on me “not having a brain” is the exact type of “Christianity” that I do not want any part of. I leave you with a word of encouragement –
2 Corinthians 1:12

Sorry Mrs. Robinson, you don’t have the high ground here as much as you would like. What you’ve got is YOUR interpretation and personally preferred application of the Bible.

Speaking of “my attack,” might I remind you that YOU came to MY blog to call ME a hypocrite w/ your verse-dropping. Quite impressive manners there, Mrs. Robinson.

Faithnj
April 17, 2012

whatever the case, Land now admits to the plagiarism, and has publicly apologized. I’m amazed by BDW’s investigation into this. I’ve never been to this website before, but thanks for uncovering Richard Land’s hypocrisy. it breaks my heart to see Christians willing to lie and cheat in order to further a racist agenda. All the same, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Maybe this will stop some so-called Christians from putting so much effort into scoring political points. Political partisanship is making more than a few Christians look bad. It would be nice to see more Christians leading the type of life Christ would have us lead. (Myself, included.)

I am thankful to you for exposing that “the emperor has no clothes.” I was a Southern Baptist for 53 years before the leadership of the convention finally pushed me to the point where I could no longer be a part of this denomination. Richard Land is chief among this leadership. I have served in management for two large SBC organizations and watched this man since he came to Nashville in the late 80’s. His agenda has been painfully obvious: promote Richard Land. In the last years as he has become more outrageous you can see the increasing influence of the farthest right wing of the Republican Party as he espouses the stance dictated by ALEC and other groups running the show. No doubt he has political aspirations and those supersede any reasonable representation of Southern Baptists. He is a political being.

This is the final straw for me. I am an African American baptist pastor in SBC and I’m done. For me the issue goes way beyond plagiarism – its using the words of others to inflict emotional and spiritual harm to large segments of the SBC (blacks, Hispanics, women) to facilitate a political agenda instead of a spiritual mandate. I have seen SBC waste valuable time to become the spiritual affiliate of the GOP through Dr. Land. Dr. Land has embarrassed me and insulted me and my church for the last time. Is SBC this large plantation now where “Massah Land” can spout off whatever he wants to say and the “good niggras” are supposed to get back in the field and work? We know the stats – the numerical growth of SBC is happening in the ethnic churches – but we’re used by Land and his ilk as stats instead of souls. I think Fred Luter should lead a new movement, let the SBC divide on this issue and let those who espouse this racist agenda keep their beloved SBC – which now should be known as “should’ve been catholic.”

Actually the BDW is just doing a good job of academic style investigative reporting, with properly cited sources. And your weak attempt at pop psych is more indicative of your weakness of mind than of anything about the BDW. As a long time reader of this blog, I find it well researched and well written, in contrast to too many that are out there. Keep your missed cheap shots to yourself if that is all you have to say.